Synthesis Paper for UWRT 1103

Garrison Hurd

A debate that has been going on for the last couple decades is should
we replace fossil fuels with renewable energy resources, such as: hydro,
wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear (to an extent). This is a topic that is
highly discussed in the political realm but not in the average persons day.
Almost everybody knows about renewable energy and global warming but
they dont really ever go in depth to look into viable economic substitutions
for fossil fuels. The question that should be asked is, is renewable energy a
viable substitution for fossil fuels? And if so how will we implement them into
our already dependent economy on fossil fuels?
In Fossil Fuels vs. Renewable Energy Resources it starts off talking
about our future energy needs as a global community. With everyones
enthusiasm about the three traditional renewable energy resources (RES)
water, wind, and solar it should be relatively easy for our future goals of
switching completely over to RES and away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels will
run out eventually and the way we are extracting and using them is killing
the environment. Fossil fuels supply about 93% of all energy consumption
needs, with RES supplying about 7%, and nuclear energy falling in both those
categories but is a highly debated source of energy. The two most common
fossil fuels being extracted are coal and oil and through the extraction
process, whole ecosystems are being destroyed. Everyone knows that this is

bad and it needs to be changed but the oil/gas companies are making too
much money and are not willing to stop until RES become a viable monetary
substitution for them. RES are just much too expensive right now and no one
is willing to invest in them in the long run just yet. We know they work and
are efficient, but they only do these things in certain environments. In many
occasions there is a hybrid system worked out between RES and fossil fuels,
such as that many gas companies use wind energy to run the plants for as
long as it will last and then when the wind dies down they turn on the gas
generators to keep the plant running until the wind picks back up. This is a
good start but we need to pick up the pace quickly. It is rumored that our
fossil fuels will be almost completely depleted somewhere between 50-150
years, there is a lot of debate on it because we are unsure of how fast the
global population and consumption of these fossil fuels will increase. The
whole idea of RES is to get energy that will work for us and for itself, an
energy source that will continuously feed itself without us trying to
manipulate the environment every time we need more. Of course we will
have to build wind turbines, dams, and solar panels in the environments but
we wont be destroying whole ecosystems anymore. We dont even have to
really build them in any new places, solar panels can be placed on roofs of
house and buildings and wind turbines will be placed in rural lands where
farms and pastures are abundant so we are not invading any new
ecosystems. (Pickering, Keith. "GETTING TO ZERO: Is Renewable Energy

Economically Viable?" GETTING TO ZERO: Is Renewable Energy Economically

Viable? 8 July 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2015)
The problem isnt that they wont work, its that many of them fall
beneath the economic threshold that would keep our economy afloat and
profitable. We have yet to create a cheaper way to harness these RES, and
until we do that, or just throw money aside and do it for the good of
humanity, large energy companies arent willing to invest in it long term yet.
Petroleum is used for more than just energy. Over 6000 items that we use
almost every day are some sort of petroleum bi-product. It isnt feasible to
just stop using fossil fuels products as a whole, just for energy purposes.
Even then we more than likely wont be able to separate ourselves
completely from it energy wise, it is just so perfect other than the fact it
releases so much CO2 into the air. Fossil fuels are widely available, easily
accessible, easily combustible, and very cost-effective. They produce much
more energy than do RES even though they are bad for the environment.
("Advantages of Fossil Fuels - Conserve Energy Future."
ConserveEnergyFuture. 19 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Oct. 2015)
Right now the solution that people keep consistently coming up with is
nuclear energy. Other than a couple meltdowns in the 1970s and the most
recent one in Japan, nuclear energy is one of the safest and most effective
clean energy sources. It can continuously provide energy over a long period
of time without the need to drill for more of it. However, we will need to build
over 200 full size nuclear power plants to keep up with the energy usage in

the US alone. Imagine how many we will need all over the world. Thats why
there has been talk about using nuclear energy as a transition source of
energy rather than a full substitute. It would be used while we start to lessen
our reliance on fossil fuels and grow our use of RES. RES needs to still be the
goal as our primary energy source because nuclear energy does have its
draw backs such as the waste and training of staff that goes into it. It has
become much more cost-effective and efficient in recent years gaining more
public popularity which is a step in the right direction. (Defreitas, Susan. "Is
Nuclear Power A Clean Energy Source? | EarthTechling." EarthTechling. 23
Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.)
Now the question is taking the form of what is the best way to
transition from fossil fuels to RES? The scientific and political community all
agree that we do need to start moving away from fossil fuels to RES, but
investors arent willing to take that big step yet. Investors are starting to
slowly move money from the one stock into the other but it will take time.
They cant all just switch over at one time or it will cause an economic crisis
and a possible stock market crash because it will flip the market over on its
side and ruin the economy since there is little money in RES right now, but it
is growing. Collectively the global community must work together to find
ways to reduce the global CO2 emission in the meantime. Eco friendly
politicians and green planet activists have statements saying that the
government should raise the price on gas and start removing subsidies so
that it is more expensive and people will start to move away from it just from

an economic standpoint and maybe the general public will possibly start to
fund RES or support legislation towards increased funding of RES. The
current government funding towards RES, as of 2011, was around $2.5
billion; which includes research, production, and maintenance of RES.
Compared to how much money goes into the petroleum and oil sector its a
small amount. In the next few years there will be a large increase in talk of
RES from the general public becoming more aware of the crisis and
becoming more informed about it and the pros and cons of RES. (Elliott,
Larry. "Can the World Economy Survive without Fossil Fuels?"
Theguardian.com. 8 Apr. 2015. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.)
It is hard to get statistical evidence that RES is a viable
replacement for fossil fuels because there hasnt been enough large scale
study and testing done with it. The majority of the articles I looked at were
opinionated but talked about both sides of the argument, leaning more
towards RES. As the research went more in depth the whole question began
to change. Its not, is renewable energy a viable substitution for fossil fuels?
And if so how will we implement them into our already dependent economy
on fossil fuels? but how long will it take the world to transition from fossil
fuel energy to RES and how much collaborative effort are national
governments willing to do so that the transition can be made in time? There
isnt a debate about if we should, but rather when and how. Oil companies
know this is killing the environment but cant do anything about it until
enough money and energy is put into the research and funding of RES. It will

take a lot of patience, money, time, and international effort to get out of this
crisis, but it will be done.